0 V ^ D J 



IN CALIFORNIA. 


SECOND EDITION, 

X 


— WITH — 



f 

Lor 





































[SECOND EDITION—WITH APPENDIX.] 

THE OTHER SIDE 

— OP THE— 

CHINESE QUESTION 

IN CALIFORNIA; 

—OR— 

A REPLY TO THE CHARGES AGAINST THE CHINESE 

As Embodied in the Resolutions adopted at the Anti-Chinese 
Mass Meeting, held April 5th, v 1876, in San Francisco. 

Respectfully Submitted to the Unbiased Judgment of the 
American People, President and Congress , 

BY THE FRIENDS OF 

P V IGHT, JUSTICE AND HUMANITY. 

/ 

—-- 


PREAMBLE. 


b 

Being fully aware that the subject in controversy, namely, 
The Chinese Immigration to this Country , is one of paramount 
importance to both State and Nation ; 

That it is a debatable question, of which thus far but one 
side has had a full hearing ; 

That it is the constitutional right and privilege of every 
citizen in this Free Republic to write, publish and speak can- 







didly his own sentiments on any public subject, whether popu¬ 
lar or unpopular ; 

And, moreover, believing that several charges against the 
Chinese, which are embodied in the Address and Resolutions 
of the Citizens’ Anti-Chinese Committee, adopted at the Mass 
Meeting held in San Francisco April 5th, are untrue, or ex¬ 
aggerated ; 

The Friends op Right, Justice and Humanity, While 
entertaining the highest respect for said Committee and the 
vast assembly which honored their Address and Resolutions 
with their approval, thej^ are compelled to dissent from 
them, and to accept the challenge contained in the above 
mentioned resolutions, “ to successfully refute the charges they 
have made against the Chinese.” 

In submitting this Reply to the intelligent and unbiased 
judgment of the American people, President ancUCongress, the 
Friends of Right, Justice and Humanity fondly hope that it 
will receive the consideration it deserves, notwithstanding it 
proceeds from a minority—since a question of a national in¬ 
terest, like this of “ Chinese Immigration,” should be decided 
from reason and fact and by the voice, not of one State alone, 
but of the majority of States. 

The Committee open their address by declaring their inten¬ 
tion to respect the provision of treaties, the decision of courts, 
and the higher considerations of humanity, in dealing with the 
Chinese who are domiciled in our midst. 

The spirit of fairness and humanity toward a helpless class 
of human beings, and of submission to law and authority, thus 
shown by the Committee, is very commendable indeed. 

Had, however, this tine declaration gone one step further,, 
and included the Chinese that may come hereafter, and before 
the abrogation of the American treaty with China, it would 
be unexceptionable. 

Why is this unjust discrimination as to treatment made 
between the Chinese who are now domiciled in our midst and 
those who are not and may come before the abrogation of the 
treaty ? 


Have not the latter as well as the former been invited to this 
country, “ by the policy, of our laws,'and the sanction of our 
highest legislative and judicial tribunals,” as the Committee 
very justly remark upon referring to the Chinese in our midst ? 

From observation, experience, and contact with the Chinese 
for twenty-five years, the Committee consider it “ their right to 
claim an intelligent opinion on the Chinese question .” 

No reasonable man will say that their claim is not well 
grounded. But it is not exclusively theirs. All persons 
who thoroughly acquaint themselves with all the facts in 
the Chinese case, both pro and con , are able to form an in¬ 
telligent and correct judgment on this subject.. 

And if the people and Congress, outside of California, are 
not competent to adjudicate this subject intelligently, why do 
the Committee invoke, with so great fervor, their decision ? 


REPLY TO THE CHARGES AGAINST THE 

CHINESE. 


First Charge —“ The 


Chinese will soon out member our people .” 


The Committee estimate the Chinese population in California 
at 200,000, (about one fourth of the entire population of the 
State) of whom 75,000 reside in San Francisco, and constitute 
“ one fourth part of our people.” 


This estimate is grossly incorrect. In order to be fair on 
this point, we will give the statistics as they have been gathered 
from reliable sources, beginning with the statement of Chinese 
passengers arrived at and departed from the port of San Fran¬ 
cisco since 1852, which was compiled from the Custom House 
records and published in the San Francisco Evening Post. 


“ Year. Arrived. Departed. 

1852 .20,025 1,768 

1853 .....,. 4,270 4,421 

1854 .16,084 2,339 


8,526 


Carried forward 


40,378 








Brought forward, 

1855 .;. 

1856 . 

1857 . 

1858 . 

1859 . 

1860 . 

1861. 

1862. 

1863 ... 

1864 . 

1865 .. 

1866 .. 

1867 . 

1868 . 

1869 .. 

1870 ... 

1871 . 

1872 . 

1873 . 

1874 . 

1875 . 

First quarter of 1876. 


Total 


..40,379 

8,526 

. 3,329 

3,473 

4,807 

3,028 

.. 5,925 

1,938 

.. 5,427 

2,542 

3,175 

2,450 

„ 7,341 

2,OoO 

. 8,490 

3,580 

8,175 

2,792 

. 6,432 

2,404 

2,682 

3,910 

.. 3,005 

2;295 

.. 2,245 

3,111 

.. 4,290 

4,475 

.11,081 

4,210 

..14,091 

4,835 

..10,870 

4,230 

.. 5,540 

3.260 

.. 9,770 

4,800 

,.17,075 

6,805 

..16,085 

7,710 

..18,021 

6,302 

.. 5,005 

625 

214,126 

90,089 


\ 


“ This gives tin excess of arrivals over departures of 124.137. 
The number of Chinese in California before this record began 
to be kept is estimated at 10,000, so that the total of Chinese 
now in the country, without deducting the deaths, would be 
about 134,000. Deduct 24,000 for deaths, and we have the 
round number of 110,000 Mongolians now with us.”— S. F. 
Post, April 20th, 1876 

Next we add the statement regarding the number of Chinese 
in America, as obtained by the Senate Sub-Committee on Chi¬ 
nese investigation from the Presidents of the six Chinese Com¬ 
panies, which is as follows : 


Sam Yup Company. 10,100 

Young Wo Company.in,200 

Kong Chow Company.15,000 

Wing Young Company.75,000 

Hop Wo Company...34,000 

Yan Wo Company. 42,000 


Total 


148,600 




































“ They estimated that there were 30,000 in San Francisco, 
and 30,000 in the State, outside of San Francisco.”— S. F. 
Bulletin , April 20th, 1876. 

Further, we append the statistics furnished to us by the 
Presidents of the Six Companies, comprising the arrivals to 
and departures from this coast by the Chinese, since 1873 to 
the present time, which are as follows : 


SAM YUP COMPANY. 


Year. Arrived. 

1873 .755 * 

1874 .842 

1875 .878 

1876, up to April.172 


KONG CHOW COMPANY. 


1873. 1,290 

1S74.1,510 

1875. 1,655 

1876, up to April. 680 

YOUNG WO COMPANY. 

1873 . 943 

1874 . 760 

1875 . 1,430 

1876, up to April . 360 

WING YOUNG COMPANY. 

1873 .5,621 

1874 .5,748 

1875 . ..5,520 

1876, up to April.1,700 


HOP WO COMPANY, 


1873 . 

1874 . 

1875 . 

1876, up to April 


2,600 

3,100 

3,200 

800 


YAN WO COMPANY. 


1873 .540 

1874 .560 

1875 .480 

1876, up to April.150 


Departed. 
520 
• 495 

574 
120 


888 

914 

712 

91 


694 

825 

670 

83 


2,738 

2,892 

2,760 

432 


1,100 

1,400 

1,500 

150 


260 

240 

210 

28 



























From which we gather, that the arrivals of Chinese in 1873 
were 11,749, and the departures 6,200. In 1874 the arrivals 
were 12,520 and the departures 6,766. In 1875, the arrivals 
were 13,163 and the departures 6,426. And in 1876, up to and 
including a part of April, the arrivals have been 3,862 4 and the 
departures 904, which figures being added together give a 
grand total, in three years and a quarter, of arrivals, 41,294, 
and of departures, 20,296, leaving an excess of arrivals over 
departures of 20,998. 

And if wt) accept the report of the Senate Sub-Committee 
authorized by the six Chinese Companies, which makes a 
more liberal estimate of. the entire Chinese population in 
America than the Custom House statistics do, there are now 
148,000 Chinese in the United States, of whom 60,000 reside in 
California, and of these 30,000 live in San Francisco and 30,000 
in the State at large. 


If therefore the population of San Francisco now reaches, 
according to the generally accepted estimate, the number of 
250,000, and that of the entire State is 800,000, the Chinese 
number in this State and City above given is less than one 
eighth of the population of the (it} 7 and less than one 
thirteenth of the population of the entire State. 


Surely, this computation makes a great difference in the 
estimate made by the Committee, that “the Chinese in Cali¬ 
fornia constitute one-fourth of the population of the entire 
State, and the Chinese in San Francisco are one fourth of its 
population.” 


But the Committee aver that “ considering the source from 
whence comes the Chinese immigration, viz, China, which con¬ 
tains 400,000,000 of inhabitants as against 40,000,000 who live 
in the United States, and considering that this is an age of 
cheap and quick transportation by reason of steam, etc., they 
feel alarmed at this increasing invasion (7. e. immigration) lest 
it may soon outnumber our Pacific Coast population and im¬ 
peril our best interests.” 

However, if the rate of Chinese immigration be in the future 
as it has been in the last twenty years, the Committee may as 


well allav their fears, since there is no reason why the gauge 
should not keep steady in the future as in the past. 

If “gold and silver discoveries ” on this coast were the cause 
of Chinese immigration, as the Committee allege, together with 
high wages for labor paid in early times, will any sensible man 
believe that said immigration will increase when placer dig¬ 
gings are exhausted and wages have fallen low. 

The Committee may rest assured that cheap labor, which is 
now so much decried, will prove in the end an effectual remedy 
against Chinese immigration. The Chinese will only stop 
coming to America, when it is made no longer profitable. 

The Committee charge that the Chinese do not settle in 
this country like the white people, at the same time they do 
not want them to remain here, fearing that they may soon out¬ 
number the white population 

Pray, do not these contrary demands show inconsistency of 
purpose ? 

But you need not, gentlemen, give way to an unnecessary 
alarm. Compare, if you please, the table of Chinese and 
white immigration of last year. 

The E veiling Post, a journal not suspected of partiality to¬ 
ward the Chinese, gave, last December, the following results 
concerning the white immigration to this State : 

Year 1875, eleven months— Arrived , 102,100— Departed, 
39,800— Gain, 62,300. 

The Post concluded the statement thus : “ The arrivals for 

the year will reach the estimate made by' us some time ago, 
110,000, and not less than 65,000 of them may be set down as 
immigrants who are bound to remain here. This is a gain of 
not much less than ten per cent, on the total population. The 
figures will overlap those of 1874 by not less than 20,000.” 

Now, let us turn to the Chinese statistics of arrivals and de¬ 
partures of last y'ear, as furnished by the six companies, which 
are more liberal in the estimates than the Custom House 
statistics. 


Year 1875. Twelve months.— Arrived , 13,163. Departed, 
6,426, Gain, 6,737. 

Thus we had last year a new accession of white population 
numbering 65,000, as against an increase of ( hinese population 
of nearly seven thousand ; in other words, the Chinese immi¬ 
gration last year numbered about one ninth of the White im¬ 
migration. 

But, let us suppose that the annual (’hinese immigration 
should reach 90,000 instead of 15,000, as at present, and let us 
set down the excess of arrivals over departures at 50,000 
yearly ; how long would it take for the Chinese to reach five 
millions, or one eighth of the present population of the United 
States ? Just one hundred years. 

The Chinese immigration, to this coast comes only by sea, 
and about three or four times a month. White immigration 
comes in every day, both by sea and by land, and in very large 
numbers. 

Finally, it must be remembered that China has been a se¬ 
cluded empire for ages, and the policy of the Imperial Govern¬ 
ment is sternly opposed to the expatriation of its subjects— 
hence it refuses to appoint any consular agent in our State for 
their protection, saying that “ if they come here they must 
take the risk.” 

The vision, therefore, of 400,000,000 of Chinamen soon over¬ 
running the land, and driving out the white man—notwith¬ 
standing the fact that after a period of twenty-five years of 
Asiatic immigration, but 148,000 of them are domiciled in our 
midst—is either a gross delusion of a diseased imagination, or 
a wicked imposition, practiced on the credulous by scheming 
demagogues. 


Second Charge —“ In the Labor Market the Chinese can under ¬ 
bid the white man or woman .” 

Our first answer to this accusation is, that if underbidding 
in the labor market were an offense punishable with banish¬ 
ment, many white laborers, both skilled and unskilled, would 



be compelled to leave the country. Certainly this offense is 
quite common to Europeans, Africans, Americans, as well as 
Asiatics. And under a penal statute prohibiting it, the invent¬ 
ors of machines, the builders of railroads, nay all who make 
use of steam or horse power on a large scale, should likewise 
quit the country, because#ali of them, like the Chinese, on ly in 
a greater measure, can underbid the white man or woman in 
the labor market. 

But, is the charge true that Chinamen can under-labor the 
white man or woman ? 

The Committee support their assertion by another, that “the 
Chinese can subsist more cheaply, and consequently work for 
lower wa<*es than the white laborer, man or woman.” 

Supposing, for the present, that Chinese labor is cheap— 
which is not the fact—we dismiss as not pertinent to this dis¬ 
cussion the reason why it is so, whether it be in consequence 
of their frugal mode of living, or from any other individual 
cause ; holding that the right to live in a most economical 
manner was never disputed to individuals even in the most 
despotic countries 

We therefore ask, in what labor market can the Chinaman 
underbid the white laborer ? Is it in the scientific, artistic or 
mechanic field of labor ? 

The Chinese cannot, evidently, compete with the white race 
in scientific labor, such as of law, divinity, physics, mathe¬ 
matics, engineering, chemistry, etc , etc., all of which branches 
furnish employment to a very large multitude. Because the 
oriental instruction of the Chinese is vastly different from the 
modern western education, and they are not sufficiently versed 
in the western languages, both modern and ancient. 

For the same reason, they cannot compete with the white 
race in most of the liberal, polite or finer arts, perfected by 
western civilization ; hence they cannot compete with our 
school teachers, professors of bellcs-letters, musicians, painters, 
sculptors, actors and thousand other artists. 

In what labor market can then the Chinese underbid the 
white man or woman ? 


[ 10 ] 

It is in the market of purely mechanic labor, but only in a 
small measure. It is in that part of the field which is open 
indiscriminately to the European, African, American and Asi¬ 
atic laborer. As, for instance, in the manual work of factories, 
shops, fields or gardens ; in the domestic service particularly of 
the menial kind. 

However, even in this restricted part of the labor market, it 
is not true that the Chinese can underbid at pleasure the white 
man or woman. They cannot compete for instance with the 
white laborer, when higher wages are offered to the latter than 
to the Chinaman for the same kind of work, as is commonly the 
case. 

They cannot compete when the work is accomplished by the 
white laborer with the aid of machines propelled by steam or 
horse power, or other mechanical appliances which the China¬ 
man, on account of his poverty, cannot have. The effect of 
these machines is to increase the production of manufactures 
or the amount of work, and thus to reduce the price of labor. 
It is in this manner that some laundries in San Francisco, with 
the aid of machinery, can reduce the price of washing to less 
than half a cent per piece, and thus undersell the Chinaman 
who works by hand. 

The charge, therefore, that “in the labor market the Chinese 
can underbid the white man or woman,” is not altogether true, 
either in a general or a particular sense. 

And, if in consequence of the total lack of capital and the 
smaller wages offered to them, the Chinese cannot well com¬ 
pete with white labor, is it likely that they can control the 
entire market of labor, or “ have a monopoly of it,” as the 
Committee assert ? 

The Chinamen have, we concede, entered the field of com¬ 
petition, partly from necessity and partly from desire of gain, 
and have engaged in several manufactures ; also, they have 
obtained employment in different offices filled likewise by the 
white people. But competition is not monopoly, and does not, 
like the latter, drive opposition out of the market. 


% 


[ 11 ] 


Ihus we see competition in manufactures, in transportation 
by land and by sea, in agricultural productions, in fact, in every 
branch ol human industry. Do the competitors on that score 
drive each other out of business ? As with capital so with 
labor, its field, particularly in California, is large, allowing plenty 
of room for laborers of all races, as a witness truly remarked 
before the Senate Committee on Chinese investigation. 


If the Committee desire to be fair and candid, they must 
acknowledge that even in the branches of industry which they 
suy “ the Chinese have attempted and monopolized —as washing, 
cigar making, box manufacturing, the making of boots, shoes, 
slippers, coarse clothing, underwear for men and women, wood 
turning, making of woolens, silk, rope, matting, the labor in 
all the mechanic arts, in the family service, in attending 
offices and stores, in fishing and raising vegetables—in these 
and other employments”—the Chinese have neither “entirely ,” 
nor mostly driven out white laborers, but in common with 
other laborers they have obtained employment. 


And why should not the Asiatic as well as the African, 
European and American Seek employment to support life ? Is 
it not the natural law of self preservation which is as impera¬ 
tive on the Asiatic as on the Caucasian race? “ Live and let 
live ” is the motto of modern humanitarianism which is not re¬ 
stricted to place, person, or nationality. 

It is claimed, however, by the Committee, that the Chinese 
have lowered the standard price of labor in this State, so far 
‘ as to cause great injury to white men, women, boys and girls, 
who being unable to live as they do, “ have in many instances 
been brought to want and idleness, and in some cases to pov¬ 
erty and crime.” 

The charge is certainly grievous and requires investigation. 
“ In the first place, “ Has the Chinese immigration , as a matter of 
fact, produced cheap labor in California ?” 

The S. F. American Free Press, under date of April 21st, 1876> 
thus answers this question : 


“ Chinese boys, twelve to sixteen years of age, fresh from 


[ 12 ] 


China, unable to speak or to understand our language, an 1 per¬ 
fectly unacquainted with our methods of labor, are paid 32 and 
$3 per week and found. 

“Boys from sixteen to twenty years, able to speak a few 
words, and partially experienced in our methods of labor, com¬ 
mand $3 to per week and found. 

“ A Chinaman, able to cook and wash for a family, readily 
commands from 35 to $8 per week. In our Eastern cities the 
same kind and amount of labor can be obtained for less money, 
the average price being about 33 to 30 per week for first class 
servants; while in the country and villages the prices range 
from 31 50 to 33 per week ; so that, as compared with other 
portions of our country, in the matter of domestic servants, we 
have no cheap labor as yet on this coast, not even Chinese. 
Whatever curses the Chinese may bring to these shores, cheap 

domestic labor is not vet one of them.” 

*/ 

Many instances can be adduced, to show that Chinese labor is 
higher than the same kind of white labor in the United States 


and Europe. 

George W. Swan, one of the proprieto s of the Union Box 
Factory, who formerly employed Chinamen, and now employs 
50 bo} T s and gads and 20 men, all white, stated to a Chronicle 
reporter that “the boys receive from fifty cents to one dollar 
and the girls from fifty to seventy-five cents per day, while he 
paid no Chinaman less than seventy-five cents per day.— S. ]?. 
Chronicle , April 14, 1876. 

In this instance, Chinese labor did not lower its standard 
price. 

But how can cheap labor injure the best interests of a State 
like California, capable of sustaining a population of ten mil¬ 
lions, whose immense resources, both mineral and agricultural, 
have not been yet developed for lack of sufficient capital, but 
which with an abundance of cheap labor might be made to 
yield an untold wealth ? 

IIow can cheap labor injure the interests of our people, when 
it is known from the history of all countries, and of our State 
in particular, that cheap labor like the Chinese has aided to 
establish several branches of manufactures which, as ex-Gov- 


[ 13 ] 

ernor Haight avers in his letter to the Secretary of the Com¬ 
mittee upon Chinese Immigration, , “ could not exist without 
it.” 

a It is argued, continues ITaight, “ that such labor as that 
performed upon swamp and overflowed lands for cxnmple, can 
only be performed by this class of laborers, and that it would 
■he as rational to suppose that the laboring classes would be in¬ 
jured by labor-saving machines as by a kind of labor which 
enables industries to thrive that otherwise could not exist.” 
The argument is not altogether without force, and so far as the 
present number of Chinese is concerned, their presence on the 
whole may not have injured, but, on the contrary , may have ben¬ 
efited white labor.” 

An opinion so candid, from a source so high as II. II. Haight, 
who was elected Governor of California in 1867, on the Anti- 
Chinese platform, is an overwhelming rebuttal to the charge of 
the Anti-Chinese Committee, that Asiatic labor has worked in¬ 
jury upon the interests of the State. 

Other no less consp’cuous persons have expressed the same 
sentiment on the same subject, before the Senate Committee of 
Investigation on the Chinese question. They are Charles W. 
Brooks, U. S. Ex-Minister to Japan and long a resident of Cal¬ 
ifornia ; F.. F. Low, formerly Minister to China and Governor 
of California ; Mr. Porter, of the firm of Porter, Oppenheimer 
A Slessinger, importers of boots and shoes, and many other dis¬ 
tinguished persons. 

The entire case is thus clearly and forcibly summed up by a 
farmer of Santa Clara, in a communication to the Chronicle , 
under date of April 18, 1876 : 

“ It is said that wages are reduced by the Chinamen. This 
is a grand mistake. We pay higher wages than are paid in any 
other State of the Union. The fact that a great deal of cheap 
labor is secured, enables farmers and others to pay white men 
more than they could do otherwise. As well say that horses 
do a great deal of work simply for their boarding, Lind that 
they live on what a white man could not live on,’ and thus 
reduce wages. Why not banish the horses from the land ? 
The farmer could have his ground spaded up. This would pro- 


[ 14 ] 

vide labor for men who can vote. It would cost him five dol¬ 
lars to raise a sack of wheat, but what of that ? The country 
would prosper. White men would get employment. Now, 
Mr. Editor, I know this to be ,a fact : That nine out of every 
ten men who carry on business in the country, look upon this 
anti-Chinese talk and howl as uncalled for They know that 
the prosperity of the country depends very much upon the 
labor of these same heathen Chinese.” 

To conclude this point : If the cheap labor of the Chinese 
has not been the cause of the reduction of wages with respect 
to white labor any more than the labor-saving machines, steam 
and horse power, but on the contrary, it has given rise to new 
industries which have furnished employment to white laborers, 
and would not otherwise exist, it follows : First —That the 
Chinese are not and cannot be made responsible for the want, 
idleness and vices of white men, women, boys and gir's, in con¬ 
sequence of lack of employment. Second —That cheap labor 
is the creator of capital and a real source uf wealth ; it will 
not therefore divide the civil community, as the anti-Chinese 
apprehend, into two classes, one of paupers and another of 
wealthy aristocrats, in a land, the natural resources of which 
are varied and almost boundless. The patent fact that in this 
State, hundreds of individuals, from the humble position of 
laborers, have risen by work and industry, to a high state of 
wealth, repels with contempt such an absurd idea. 

Finally, we advise the opponents of Chinese immigration not 
to urge the argument of cheap labor too much, for it mav 
recoil with terrible force against white immigration. If the 
American Government is to exclude all cheap labor, it must 
then turn out of the country millions of emancipated negroes, 
and must close the doors to hundreds of thousands of poor 
emigrants who arrive every year from Ireland, Germany, 
Italy, Wales, and other parts of Europe. 

•- 

Third Charge :—“ The Chinese do not here invest their money ; 
do not buy, but import from China most of the clothes they wear 
and the food they consume ; send to China the proceeds of their 
labor , and provide for the return of their dead bodies .” 



[ 15 ] 

Supposing these to be facts, what inference do the.Committee 
draw from them ? That the Chinese are not useful to the State ? 

x However, it has been shown already, that they have aided 
and are now aiding to develop the natural resources of the 
country, to multiply industries, to widen the field of labor and 
to increase our wealth* And is not this a sufficient proof of 
their usefulness ? 

W as ever the obligation imposed on either capital or labor, 
to ppend the money fairly earned in the same place where it is 
earned ? Do white capitalists or laborers recognize such a law 
anywhere ? If so, then the wealth of the Bonanza mines 
would have to remain in Nevada and in Virginia City, instead 
of San Francisco. By universal consent, each individual is free 
to invest his own money in the manner and place he deems 
most advantageous to himself. This species of liberty is one of 
“the inalienable rights with which all men are endowed 
by their Creator,” according to the Declaration of our Inde¬ 
pendence. 

However, the above charge does not hold good with regard 
to the Chinese, some of whom have bought thousands of acres 
of land which they have put under cultivation, and others 
have acquired real estate property in San Francisco, the value 
of which, according to Assessor Badlands statement before the 
Senate Committee, last year, was over $100,000. 

Nor is it true that “ the Chinese do not use or consume our 
products, and that they altogether remit to China the proceeds 
of tl*eir labor. We can do no better than repeat the answer 
made on this same point to the Jesuit Buchard, in a lecture 
delivered at Platt’s Hall, March 14th, 1873, by the Eev. O. 
Gibson, a Protestant missionary for ten years in China, and 
long resident of San Francisco, having charge of the Chinese 
mission on this coast : 

“It is about time that the fallacy was taken out of this kind 
of talk. Many Chinamen wear garments made out of our 
cloth, they wear our boots and our hats ; they are fond of 
watches, and jewelry, and sewing machines ; they ride in our 
cars and steamers ; they eat our fish, and beef, and potatoes, 
and exhaust our pork market. Take the one item of pork 




[16] 


♦ 


alone, and the Chinamen of this coast pay to our producers on 
this coast half a million of dollars annually. If we would 
itemize the various products which they consume, we should 
iind that they do not send home over ten per cent, of their 
earnings.” 

To form an idea of the amount of money which the Chinese 
pay annually to the people and Government of the State and 
^Nation, let us make the following modest computation : 

If we reckon that each Chinaman pays yearly to the busi¬ 
ness community of the State for the articles of life he uses and 
the food he consumes, such as fresh meat and groceries, and for 
his conveyance in street cars, railroads, and steamers, only $20 
a year, or less than $2 per month ; upon the estimate we have 
before made of only 60,000 Chinese sojourning in California, 
the amount of money thus paid here by them amounts to 
$1,200,000 annually. 

Our opponents say that the Chinese have scarcely any real 
estate property ; if so, they must, and do, pay high rents for 
their dwellings. In San Francisco alone, their rental in the 
quarter they inhabit, which comprises about eight blocks, can¬ 
not be less than $150,000 per month, which, being added to the 
rental paid by the Chinese wash-houses and cigar stores 
throuhout the City, it will swell to $200,000 monthly, or 
$2,400,000 yearly. Assuming that the 30,000 Chinese in cities 
and towns throughout the State, outside of San Francisco, pay 
no less than $500,000 for house rent and that the annual insur¬ 
ance paid by Chinese merchants is no less than $100,000, we 
have a total of $3,0Q0,000 paid annually by the Chinese tg real 
estate owners in this State. 

Add now the poll tax, which is for them $120,000 ; also the 
license tax for mining, washing, etc., which can be no less .than 
$50,000 a year, and behold a grand total of the amount of 
money disbursed annually by the Chinese population in the 
State of California, for the benefit of the Government, merchants, 
real estate owners, railroad and steamer companies, equal to 
$4,370,000. 

This vast sum, however, does not comprise the Custom duties 
which the Chinese pay lor the articles they import to the 


[ 17 ] 


United States. Bev. O. Gibson has estimated the duties on 
their imports to be no less than $2,000,000 each year Cer¬ 
tainly the figures of Chinese imports for 1874 and 1875, as 
gathered from the Custom House, seem to warrant this state- 
ment- 

imports 1874 and 1875. 


Tea. 

Rice. 

1874. 

1875. 

$ 518,926 
1,141,462 
757,640 
183,656 
209,336 
162,823 
1,741,739 

Opium. 

Sugar. . 

. ... 481,273 

Silk. 

Coffee. 

Other articles. 

. 620,424 

. 1,374,422 

Totals.. 

Grand total....i. 

.'.$4,688,797 

$4,715,582 

.$9,404,379 


How do not these figures effectively contradict the statement 
which has so much prejudiced the popular mind against the 
Chinese, that they spend no money in this State, but “remit 
to China the proceeds ol their labor ? ” 


Fourth Charge : “ The majority of Chinamen have been im¬ 

ported under servile-labor contracts , and the women for lewd 
purposes, against the spirit and letter of our law. 

This charge is indeed serious ; for it asserts that Chinamen 
and Chinawomen are slaves, and slavery of any kiftd is pro¬ 
hibited by the'Constitution and laws of the United States. 

There is no question, therefore, as to the nature of the 
offense ; the only question is as to its existence. Therefore we 
ask, where is the proof? Have any considerable number of 
Chinamen and Chinawomen been interrogated as they should, 
with regard to their condition of life, and whether they have 
come to this country of their o\Vn free will and accord ? We 
have not learned that an 3 " considerable body of Chinese 
have yet been examined on this particular, and that they have 
uniformly sustained the charge. 

But who are the parties that have made these contracts and 
are holding Chinamen and Chinawomen in bondage ? This is 
equally unknown. ♦ 

The Anti-Chinese Committee speak of secret companies that 
hold them in servitude and enforce the labor contracts under 


severe penalties, which our laws cannot prevent. 

Where are the particulars that will corroborate this state¬ 
ment ? Hone are given by the Committee. Surely if it be 
true, that nearly GO,000 Chinese, both men and women, are held 
in»servitude in California, is it probable that none, or even few 
of them, have yet sought to escape, when the opportunity of 














•[ 18 ] 

regaining their liberty is so great ? And if persecuted by 
secret companies, would they not have recourse to our civil 
authorities for protection, make known their complaints, and 
reveal the secret methods of this species of slavery ? 

Nevertheless, if we except some isolated case, in which some 
Chinaman was unjustly deprived of his liberty and punished 
by certain private parties, we have not sufficient evidence on 
which to found this accusation. 

Is it likely that labor contractors either here or in China 
would engage servile labor, being fully aware that it is pro¬ 
hibited by our laws and the contract declared null and void, 
and made a penal offense ? 

What slave-holder would have imported his slaves to 
England, Germany, or France, knowing, for certain, that on 
reaching those lands they would have been made free and him¬ 
self thrown into prison and subjected to a heavy tine ? Is the 
case different, here, with regard to masters of Chinese slaves, 
peons or coolies, and their agents ? Certainly not. 

But since the Anti-Chinese Committee and their friends seem 
to think that the so called Six Chinese Companies import both 
men and women for service, against their own free will, and 
that they exercise coercive authority over, them, we desire to 
sum up the facts relative to the character of said companies 
and of the Chinese in general, as elicited by the investigation 
lately held by the Senate Committee. 

1st. Rev. O. Gibson, for ten years missionary in China, testi¬ 
fied that V in China there is no slavery of'men.”—[S. F. Bulletin , 
April 12th. 

2 d. Ching Fung Chow, President of the Tan Wo Co : “ China¬ 
men never sell their wives at home.”—[S. F. Alta , April 20th. 

3d. Rev. Dr. Loomis, formerly missionary in China : “ In so¬ 
cial relations the Chinese are commendable ; man and wife 
are faithful.”—[S. F. Bulletin , April 20th. 

4th. Ex-Governor F. F. Low, formerly Minister to China : 
“ Most of the Chinese women who emigrate are loose in their 
morals, but there is not much immorality among the females in 
China, as it is punished severely thei^e.”—[S. F. Chronicle , April 
12 th.] “He did not believe any Chinese were brought here 
against’their wills.—[ Chronicle , ib. 

5th. Rev. O. Gibson : “Was of opinion, that a majority of 
the Chinese who come to the United States were free and un¬ 
trammeled, being bound by no contract whatever. He did not 
think that the Six Companies had any power over their mem¬ 
bers other than a persuasive power.” 

“The Six Companies were an association formed for the pur¬ 
pose of pretecting the'Interests of its members, and there were 


[ 19 ] 

no contracts, so far as he knew, between the companies and 
any Chinaman who comes to this country.”—rS. F. Chronicle, 
April 13th. 

^1 he Presidents of the S:x Chinese Companies supported Dr. 
Gibsons statement, adding, that one of their objects is to take 
care ot the sick ; that they discourage prostitution, gambling, 
and Chinese immorality, and do not import either males or 
females, nor advance any money foi* their passage. 

(ith. A. Altmayer, a member of the firm of Einstein Bros., 
(manufacturers of boots and shoes, who have, until late, em¬ 
ployed Chinamen of the Hop Wo. Co.) testified that “He did 
not think that the men were the slaves of the Company, for 
they threw up their contract when they chose and left without oppo¬ 
sition.' —j"S. F. Chronicle , April 15th. 

Even if this evidence should conflict with contrary evi¬ 
dence, and its high authority be disregarded, it will most cer¬ 
tainly establish one thing, namely, that the Anti Chinese Com¬ 
mittee have not yet found positive proof for sustaining the 
sweeping charge which they have made against the Chinese, 
namely, that 1 they are slaves imported to this country for 
servile labor or lewd purposes against the spirit and letter of 
our Constitution and law.” 

There may be undoubtedly some persons who make a traffic 
of Chinese females for immoral purposes and restrict their lib 
erty ; but it is questionable, even with regard to them, whether 
they have been imported against their wills. 

Certainly, the law of Congress provides that our Consuls in 
.Chinese ports shall duly investigate both the object of their 
emigration and their voluntary departure, and if they find 
that they are taken against their will, or for lewd purposes, 
they are required to refuse them the certificate of emigration 
which all masters of vessels must require of emigrants bound 
to the United States ; and the law of Congress to Begulate 
Chinese Immigration, passed in December, 1869, requires, more¬ 
over, that’no Chinese female shall be permitted to emigrate to 
the United States who is not accompanied by either her father 
or her husband. 

Therefore, if the law has been violated in this respect, not 
the Chinese Companies, but our Consuls at the Chinese ports 
are to blame, and the appeal to Congress should be on our part 
to see that the law is enforced. 


SUNDRY CHARGES AND CONCLUSION - . 

We dismiss as unworthy of consideration the charges that 
“ The Chinese are pagans; are *not a homogeneous race , do not 
adopt our manners , our food, our style of dress, etc." 



[20] 


It will be a sad day, indeed, for this gr.Qat Republic, when it 
shall prescribe personal qualities of this kind as conditions to 
immigration. America will again become a wild then, and her 
boast as “The Land of the Free” will be no more. 


great 


Such qualifications for simple residents as recommended by the 
Anti-Chinese Committee are unknown even in the most despotic 
countries. 


The Chinese are accused of being filthy, diseased , immoral and 
vicious people, who fill our prisons and crowd our hospitals. 

The Report of the Board of Directors of the California State 
Prison, for 1875, gives the total number of prisoners as 1,083, 
of whom only 187 are Chinese, notwithstanding they find but 
little mercy in our Courts. The County Hospital Report shows 
also but a small proportion of Chinese patients. The City 
Record of mortality among them i§ very small and l>r. Toland 
has testified that they are personally clean. 

But if these evils exist, why do not the Municipal Author¬ 
ities remedy \ them ? Legislation is not exhausted as it is 
alleged, only faithful police officers who do not accept bribes 
are required, as shown by the investigation. 

Again, if these charges be true, how does it happen that the 
Chinese have “ monopolized ,” as you say, a great portion of the 
domestic and commercial service, and in the very best houses, 
for nearly twenty years ? Can it be that our wealthy and 
honored citizens will confide their households to filthy, dis¬ 
eased, immoral and criminal servants ? Either our citizens 
are not what they seem or it is not true what 30 U say in 
regard to the Chinese. 


But it is enough. This Anti-Chinese Crusade, started by- 
sectarian fanaticism encouraged by personal prejudice and 
ambition for political capital, has already culminated in per¬ 
sonal attack, abuse and incendiarism against the inoffensive 
Chinese. Anti-Coolie Club's are now arming and'preparing to 
follow the late example of the people of Antioch, who have 
banished the Chinese and burned their quarters. 

It is high time that the Municipal, State and National author¬ 
ities, in common with law abiding citizens, should awake to the 
imminent danger that threatens to break the peace and to dis¬ 
grace both State and Nation. They must assert their authority 
in defense of our treaty obligations with China, for the protec¬ 
tion of Chinese emigrants and in behalf of law and order. X. 


) 


APPENDIX. 


It may be interesting for the American people, and Congress, 
to know why it is that on a question so important as the one 
on Chinese immigration, the plaintiff alone, namely, White 
-Labor, should have had a full hearing in California. 

Surely Capital and Commerce cannot be indifferent to it. 

It is well known that most of our manufactories employ 
Chinese labor, although not exclusively. 

Even the mineral, agricultural, and railroad interests cannot 
dispense with it. 

All these great agencies aver, that under a high wages sys¬ 
tem their business will be seriously crippled, if not destroyed 
entirely. 

Commerce between China and the United States to the ex¬ 
tent of several millions annually, is in a great measure pending 
on this question, and the rights and privileges of American cit¬ 
izens, nay the protection of their lives and property in that 
country, are ail hanging on the balance. 

Is it not then strange, that none of the parties so vitally con¬ 
cerned have yet risen in defense. How can such a conduct be 
explained ? 

Very easily. The present situation is truly critical. Agri¬ 
cultural producers and manufacturers see before them a most 
powerful opposition whose patronage they need and whose dis¬ 
favor they dread ; they are therefore' very much perplexed as 
to what course to take. If they favor Chinese immigration 
openly, they lose a large patronage, if they oppose it, they lose 
the main spring of their wealth, “cheap labor.” 

As with the merchant so with the Press. It has become 
mum before a frowning multitude, or has loosened its tongue in 
an endless tirade against “the heathen Chinee.” 

It was a different thing with it in time past when it was 
really independent, or not under restraint. It could then even 
praise the Chinese for their good qualities as domestics. Here 
is how The Alta California spoke of white and Chinese servants 
in an editorial under date of November 16, 1869 : 



[ 22 ] , 

“ A supply of good servants at moderate wages is one of the 
great wants of this coast. Thousands of families have gone to 
the Atlantic States, mainly because they could not get along 
without servants, and could not afford to pay the wages current 
here. Many of those who demand high wages are ignorant of 
their business and grossly dishonest, so that there is an extensive 
preference for Chinese servants, who generally work for less pay 
and are less wasteful and more respectful, and do not tattle at 
all.” 

The same utterances made at this time would cost The Alta 
her journalistic life. 

Because The San Francisco Chronicle , a journal that has fairly 
earned the honor of Champion of the present Anti-Chinese 
crusade, did, on the 13th of last April, publish a communication 
from “a Farmer” in reply to the allegation that “Chinese 
labor is cheap ;” it was chastised and catechised by an indig¬ 
nant subscriber the following day, in this styfe : 

“ Now, allow me to say that in my opinion—and mine is that 
of many others—that you should not (7. e. if you are in earnest 
and sincere) publish any such malicious, anti-liberal, lying 
communications, as they are certainly detrimental to the cause 
we seem to espouse.” 

It cannot be doubted that the large Anti-Chinese Mass Meet¬ 
ing, held at Union Hall, April 5th, also that the inflammatory 
speeches made that evening outside of the Hall and in the anti- 
Chinese clubs ever since, which, on the 26th of May, resulted 
in an anti-Chinese mob in this city, have all had the effect of 
inspiring fear for personal injury, and of keeping back many 
unimpeachable witnesses who would have gladly testified on 
the Chinese side of the question, thus leaving the field clear to 
the opposition. 

Indeed, what chance would the defense stand before a Legis¬ 
lative Committee of Investigation which is composed wholly of 
men opposed to Chinese immigration, and who are the creatures 
of anti-Coolie clubs ? 

The Committee seem to be under command not to admit any 
other evidence but what will favor the anti-Chinese side of 
the case. 

A correspondent in the Chronicle of April 14th,.reprimands 
the Committee because they received Rev. O. Gibson’s testi- 


* 


[ 23 ] . 

mony which favored the Chinese. “I think,” says that fair 
man, “the Senate Committee made a great mistake in examin¬ 
ing witnesses whose salaries depend upon the continuance of 
the Chinese among us.” 

The Investigating Committee would not receive the testi¬ 
mony of a well-known manufacturer in this city, who has had 
in his employ thousands ot Chinese laborers for over ten years, 
because he very properly refused to be bound by questions, but 
offered to give full evidence of all he knew about the Chinese 
as laborers, and of their good qualities when they are properly 
treated, as well as of the great benefits they have conferred 
upon the City and State, 

And here it is proper to ask, why did not the Committee ex¬ 
amine a large number of Chinese, to ascertain whether they 
are slaves under contract as charged by the opposition. Surely 
it would have been to their advantage to testify on that point 
and have it settled. But the Committee seemed afraid of a 
frank confession that might be made by the Celestials. 

On the contrary, they interrogated witness in matters about 
which they knew nothing, as for instance Dr. Shorb, who can¬ 
didly acknowledged that he had never visited the Chinese 
quarter, as was his duty to do as Health Inspector, and conse¬ 
quently could say nothing of their sanitary habits.—[ Bulletin , 
April 20.] 

They received as truthful the Assessor’s statement, that the 
Chinese real estate property in this city amounts to about 
8100,000, notwithstanding that that sum scarcely covers the in¬ 
surance they pay on their buildings. 

By their investigation they made it appear that gambling, 
prostitution, robbery, are vices exclusively belonging to the 
Chinese, when it is a patent fact that their quarter is bordered 
by “ Barbary Coast,” so designated from the large number of 
vicious of all races and nationalities that have congregated for 
twenty-six years there more than in any other part of the city, 
where hundreds of ill-fame houses are kept open day and night 
by women of all races and nations. 

The Legislative Committee have gathered amass of opinions 


[ 24 ] 


from several irresponsible witnesses, conflicting in statement 
and unsupported by circumstantial evidence. 

Now the question arises, can one-sided testimony taken in the 
midst of a popular excitement, by a committee of settled views, 
from several exceptionable witnesses, unchallenged by the de¬ 
fense, form a basis for the American people and Congress on 
which to form their decision on the Chinese question now 
pending ? 

The minority have the right to demand in behalf of right 
and justice, and for the welfare of our City, State and Nation, 
the appointment of an unbiased Committee of Investigation 
under the authority of Congress, and a new investigation in 
which both sides, pro and con, may have a full hearing on the 
Chinese question. Until such an impartial investigation is held 
they trust and pray that Congress will suspend action on any 
bill or measure tending to impede or restrict Chinese emigration 
to this country. 

It would seem a disgraceful surrender to the majority under 
pressure, regardless of the rights of the minority. 

It would embolden a lawless element in the ranks of the op¬ 
position already bent upon acts of violence, who would compel 
by force the helpless Chinese in our midst to leave the State 
and their employers to discharge them. 

It would strike a fatal blow at our commercial prosperity, and would 
deter capitalists from making further investments in manufactures^ 
As an instance, three of them who contemplated spending $150,000 
in machinery and the enlargement of buildings, have, in consequence 
of anonymous notes demanding the discharge of the Chinese under 
penalty of death and fire of buildings, abandoned the idea altogether. 

It would be, therefore, a retrograde step in the career of liberty 
. and civilization so happily inaugurated by our forefathers, one hun¬ 
dred years *go. 

The party of reaction, intolerance and sectarian education, who 
compose the majority and the fiercest pait of the opposition, would 

justly claim such action by Congress on the great anniversary of our 
glorious independence as a great triumph over civil aud religious 
liberty, as an offset to our immortal declaration, and the turning point 
of the great revolution of ideas wrought in this century. 

No greater calamity could befall our nation !! X. 





